[anotheryou]

Well that discussion talk is not an open discourse about the situation...

He quoted what he believed was scientific evidence in a private conversation that became public, has comments on fashism being efficient are clearly anti-facist and believed to observe a gender stereotype. No matter if the facts were true, it should be possible to discuss such things (especially those you think are facts) in private without getting canceled. Even if they would play in to the hand of racism or sexism if made as public statements.

I found his appology a bit weak, but I also don't see his offense, despite the messages in public being offensive and possibly harmful.

[viccis]

I think people have little patience lately for tolerating private discussion they find objectionable with Epstein.

[lukan]

I think people have little patience (or rather fear) to engage with different points of view in general these days.

[viccis]

I think people have found out the hard way that the paradox of tolerance is real.

[BoredPositron]

No tolerance for the intolerant.

[lukan]

Can you show me, where exactly Joshua Bach stands for intolerance?

[BoredPositron]

You've read the email exchange with epstein?

How billions dieng to famine would be a good thing or culling the elderly and infirm?

Don't even know why I bother answering.

[lukan]

I read just parts of it. Can you link or explain what you mean here? I do not understand the connection to intolerance.

[anotheryou]

oh, did not read that one...

[darubedarob]

Thats why hamas got chancelled?

[lukan]

I believe it was more about actions, not thoughts.